Iraq , Sun Tzu and the collapse of US Hegemony

Iraq , Sun Tzu and the collapse of US Hegemony

Throughout the whole history of warfare the successful generals spawned by brutal memes of the time held an advantage. Napoleon , Alexander ,or even Hitler could for whatever reason mobilize the will of the people and universally manage their beliefs.

The Neocon Staussian logic falters on this one assumption. They believe that war is inevitable and superior military strength should be utilized. They forget that superior military strength can only be utilized if the will of the country can be manifested to crush the enemy. Think through how any of the above mentioned leaders would approach Iraq and the words genocide and slavery come to mind.

The concept of “the will to wage war” is a an important dynamic because it’s a one that is ill-considered in the Necon philosophy. When the conservatives analyze their military superiority they ponder smart missiles and stealth bombers.and assume that these advantages translate to utopian military outcomes.

If we could bring Sun Tzu in as an independent consultant on the middle east his review would points

“There are three ways by which the army is put into difficulty by the ruler:

He does not know that [his army] should not advance but instructs them to advance, or does not know [his army] should not withdraw and orders a retreat. This is termed ‘entangling the army.’

He does not understand [his army’s] military affairs but [directs them] in the same way as his [civil] administration. Then the officers will become confused.

He does not understand [his army’s] tactical balance of power (ch’űan) but undertakes responsibility for command. Then the officers will be doubtful. (Powell, Zinni etc etc)

. “When employing [the army] in battle, a victory that is long in coming will blunt their weapons and dampen their ardor. If you attack cities, [the army’s] strength will be exhausted. If you expose the army to a prolonged campaign, the state’s resources will be inadequate. [Think of the growing deficit and war spending, and then of the rebuilding effort.]

“One who excels in employing the military does not conscript the people twice or transport provisions a third time.” And, “The state is impoverished by the army when it transports provisions far off. When provisions are transported far off, the hundred surnames [taxpayers] are impoverished.”

“Thus what [motivates men] to slay the enemy is anger; what [stimulates them] to seize profits from the enemy is material goods. Thus in chariot encounters, when ten or more chariots are captured, reward the first to get one. Change their flags and pennants to ours; intermix and employ them with our own chariots.”

“Treat the captured soldiers well in order to nurture them [for our use]. This is referred to as ‘conquering the enemy and growing stronger.’”

"There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare."

The number of US soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen deployed around the world is imposing.
Fully one-third of the 1.4 million men and women in the armed forces are posted outside the country, either ashore or afloat, in 136 countries.

Their operations range from several sergeants on training missions in Latin America or Africa to 169,000 troops in Iraq and 19,000 in Afghanistan. Some are in Central Asia, which is literally halfway around the world. Moreover, this military empire dates back six decades to the end of World War II.

Today, 69,000 troops are in Germany, 35,000 in Japan, 12,000 in Italy and 11,000 in Britain. In South Korea are 33,000 troops still there 53 years after the Korean War.

The cost in blood has been intense. In South Korea, Vietnam and the smaller skirmishes such as that in Panama since 1945, more than 82,000 US warriors have suffered battle death. More than three times that number have been wounded. The number killed in Iraq has passed 2,050 and continues to climb.

Added to this is the cost in treasure. US taxpayers have been asked for US$450 billion for next year's defense budget, which is more than the combined military spending of China, Japan, France and 10 other nations, according to the CIA.

Bin Laden's proposes that he will provoke the US into bankruptcy . Everyone of his communications reflects the tactic of provoking the US to spend money. He invested 100k in 9/11 and provoked a $2 trillion dollar response

Back to Sun Tzu

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."

I would say the US falls into a category worse than the "know neither" category - the "I don't want to know either" category. We are blind to what is going on over there, and to our own disastrous energy trajectory.

Bin Laden tells us exactly what he will do, and what he wants us to do in response - then we do it and claim victory. We think we are winning the war against Al Qaeda when his greatest victory (9-11) was to drag us into the middle east (like the Soviets in Afghanistan, and us before in Vietnam). His dream is a United States that gets more dependent on Arabian oil every day, and bankrupts its government with military spending that only inflames his base. The day of reckoning he wants wasn't 9/11, it will be the collapse of the United States economy and retreat from the middle east.